lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: PROPOSAL: /proc standards (was dot-proc interface [was: /proc
On Tue, 2001-11-06 15:42:40 -0700, Erik Andersen <andersen@codepoet.org>
wrote in message <20011106154240.A32249@codepoet.org>:
> On Tue Nov 06, 2001 at 11:33:49PM +0100, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> > On Tue, 2001-11-06 15:28:26 -0700, Erik Andersen <andersen@codepoet.org>
> > wrote in message <20011106152826.C31923@codepoet.org>:
> > > On Tue Nov 06, 2001 at 07:24:13PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > > PROCESSOR=0
> > > > VENDOR_ID=GenuineIntel
> >
> > PROCESSOR=1
> > ...
> >
> > > > . /proc/cpuinfo
> > >
> > > I think we have a winner! If we could establish this
> > > as policy that would be _sweet_!
> >
> > What do you expect on a SMP system?
>
> How about something like:
> NUMBER_CPUS=8
> VENDOR_ID_0=GenuineIntel

Well, somebody came up with the idea of having XML in kernel. I'd really
love to see all those single-file-multiple-info files going away. Can't
we have a simple tree using one file per value / one value per file?
Would ease *many* things a lot...

MfG, JBG

--
Jan-Benedict Glaw . jbglaw@lug-owl.de . +49-172-7608481
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:12    [W:0.187 / U:4.060 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site